On 8/16/07, Stephan Beal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Aug 16, 7:39 pm, Mitch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > *snip* > .... Simon Willison apparently has a > similar hang-up about jQuery. And, like i am in my hate-hate > relationship with Python, he's in the minority.
Minor detail, it wasn't Simon Willson who made that comment, it as Thor Larholm (http://larholm.com/about-2/) I think one aspect of Thor's argument can be proved true with a grain of salt and that is learning jQuery isn't a replacement for learning JS/DOM for SOME people. Two different situations to take into account: 1) Average j(an|o)e want's to spice up h(er|is) page and add a cool tabbed interface, a jQuery minute(TM) later and they're done 2) Application developer is building an enterprise solution/product and utilizing jQuery. jQuery greatly speeds up development but underlying knowledge of JS/DOM is of the utmost importance. Having come from a strong JS background prior to jQuery, jQuery doesn't replace my thought process in regards to the DOM, it enhances it taking development time from hours of tedius coding to a jQuery minute(TM). The knowledge of the "pure form" is (I'll go as far as to say) required. So I can see his argument for not having those he's mentoring learn it, but that doesn't mean he shouldn't use it. This can go back to the argument in CS majors of students complaining that they have to learn memory management/heaps/stacks/registeres/etc when Java doesn't use any of them. The thing that ends up distinguishing good from great programmers is their underlying knowledge of the abstraction layers they're using. Thus we're right back at Simon Wilson's argument for learning the underlying black box. -js http://jQueryMinute.com (my host is having some network problems...)
